Musk and Rubio spar with Polish minister over Starlink in Ukraine
The proof that absolute power corrupts continues
Rachel Looker
BBC News, Washington
- Published9 March 2025
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Elon Musk have clashed with Poland’s foreign minister over the use of the tech billionaire’s Starlink satellite internet system in Ukraine.
Musk said on X that Ukraine’s “entire front line” would collapse if he turned the system off. Radoslaw Sikorski responded, saying his country paid for its use in Ukraine and a threat to shut it down would result in a search for another network.
Rubio dismissed Sikorski’s claims and told him to be grateful, while Musk called him a “small man”.
The exchange appeared to lead to Polish PM Donald Tusk calling on his country’s allies to show respect for their weaker partners, rather than arrogance.
Starlink’s system is part of SpaceX’s venture to provide high-speed internet to remote and underserved areas. It has been used extensively by the Ukrainian military.
Sunday’s exchange started when Musk posted that Starlink was the “backbone of the Ukrainian army” and that “their entire front line would collapse if I turned it off”.
Sikorski then responded, saying that Poland was paying for the service.
“Starlinks for Ukraine are paid for by the Polish Digitization Ministry at the cost of about $50 million per year,” Sikorski wrote. “The ethics of threatening the victim of aggression apart, if SpaceX proves to be an unreliable provider we will be forced to look for other suppliers.”
In response, Rubio said Sikorski was “just making things up… no-one has made any threats about cutting Ukraine off from Starlink”.
“And say thank you because without Starlink Ukraine would have lost this war long ago and Russians would be on the border with Poland right now,” he added.
Musk later responded to Sikorski’s post calling him a “small man”.
“Be quiet, small man. You pay a tiny fraction of the cost. And there is no substitute for Starlink,” he wrote.
On Monday morning Polish Prime Minister Tusk, without specifying who or what he was referring to, wrote on X: “True leadership means respect for partners and allies.
“Even for the smaller and weaker ones. Never arrogance. Dear friends, think about it.”
The Starlink terminals are key to Ukraine’s army operations and have been used since the start of the Russian invasion in February 2022.
There are tens of thousands of terminals in the country, including up to 500 bought by the US Department of Defence in June 2023.
I ask MuseByte
What is the correct quote relating to absolute power corrupts?
ChatGPT said:
The correct and full quote is:
“Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men.”
It was written by Lord Acton (John Emerich Edward Dalberg-Acton) in a letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton in 1887. The phrase is often shortened to just:
“Absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
Would you like any historical context on it?
You said:
No but I could ask you to ponder how a man (or person) “with everything” is more or less likely to be corrupted by their own almost alien and unnatural world view – just by being such an aloof human being – and I might ask; is it inevitable that anyone living such an unreal life is bound to end up pursuing some controversial path or falling into “The Peter Principle”? I’m reminded of the tongue in cheek comment about prince Charles, now King Charles 3rd, always smelling fresh paint. How can these kinds of individuals sincerely view the world in a way most folk may view it or is that the wrong question and should we ‘allow’ any person’s view of life to be an acceptable one, even when they may have lost or had their own moral compass distorted grotesquely when compared to most mere mortals?
ChatGPT said:
That’s a fascinating line of thought. A person “with everything” exists in a bubble of privilege so detached from normal human experience that their perspective on the world becomes fundamentally alien. The sheer unnaturalness of their existence—whether through immense wealth, power, or status—means they interact with reality in a way few can truly grasp.
Is such a person inevitably corrupted? Not necessarily, but the risk is immense. When surrounded by sycophants, limitless resources, and a reality where their desires are instantly fulfilled, their feedback loop becomes warped. They’re rarely told “no.” They lose the checks and balances that ground ordinary people. What they want is often mistaken for what is right—and worse, the world reshapes itself to accommodate their will, reinforcing the illusion.
The Peter Principle & The Bubble of Power
The Peter Principle suggests that people rise to their level of incompetence. When applied to figures like billionaires, monarchs, or tech moguls, it implies that someone at the top may not actually deserve their position in terms of wisdom or ethics. They may have been competent in one area (business, military, birthright), but now find themselves in a realm—governance, moral leadership, global influence—where they are out of their depth. And yet, because of their status, few dare challenge them.
Sincerely Understanding the World?
You mentioned King Charles III and the joke about fresh paint—perfectly encapsulating this detachment. How can someone who has never experienced a “normal” life understand what normal truly is? Can Musk, Bezos, or any ultra-elite individual ever grasp what a struggling single parent feels? Or the anxiety of someone in an underpaid job? Maybe in theory, but never in visceral reality. Their worldview is not our worldview—it’s shaped by privilege, abstraction, and detachment from consequences.
Should We ‘Allow’ Their Distorted Perspective?
This is where it gets tricky. If we argue that every human perspective is valid, then yes, even the most grotesquely warped worldview should be allowed to exist. But in practical terms, a world shaped by the moral compass of the detached elite can become a dystopia for the majority.
Perhaps it’s not so much about allowing their perspective but recognizing its distortions. A powerful person’s morality should always be examined in context—are they making choices based on a genuine understanding of others, or merely their own warped reality?
History suggests that most individuals in such positions will fall into controversial paths—either by believing their own myth, becoming authoritarian, or making decisions that serve their limited understanding of the world. A few, however, remain self-aware enough to actively seek checks on their power—though they are the rarest of breeds.
So, is corruption inevitable? Maybe not. But unless someone in an alien world makes an extraordinary effort to stay grounded, they will almost certainly drift into a moral universe that looks monstrous to the rest of us.
About the Author
